Hi, new here. i was just part of an argument on facebook which i found rather interesting. I don't want to give any details on this, where i stand, etc, so I'll just post the content and have you decide who is right. Take into account that it was a very large one and ranged from several topics, so i am starting almost from the end:

Person A:

Bah, if we where discussing the irrationality of the claim in the nonexistence of God you would soon be claiming you never said there is evidence that God does not exists, but we just dont know. Which is an agnostic argument and yet you wou...ld see no contradiction from your previous statement just like bill maher and many atheists.

If we where talking about the irrationality of academia to claim that gender is entirely a social construct and there exists no difference between races and the evidence is piled against it you would change your argument into something else "we never said it was a social construct or that there where no differences, We are all equal in this abstract sense" which is entirely different to the first claim.

Same way you been chancing gears concerning the certainty of science.

And the reason you claim i am not staying in topic is because you are a reverse cripple. You only know of one tiny subject and cannot see the greater picture. Be Honest, how many books on history do you read a year? What about politics or economic models or philosophy or literature?

Lets take into account the feminine way you use the emotionally charged words such has prejudices, sexism, bias, racism, etc. What are the purpose of this? To defend your ideology. If someone demands objective evidence for defending this ideology you dont need to, he enters into the special section. You have people who agree with you and thats all you need.

Person B:

‎

"Bah, if we where discussing the irrationality of the claim in the nonexistence of God you would soon be claiming you never said there is evidence that God does not exists, but we just dont know. Which is an agnostic argument and yet you w...ould see no contradiction from your previous statement just like bill maher and many atheists."

There is no contradiction between atheism and agnosticism. Atheism is just the absence of belief. I'm a-theistic just like I'm a-fairytalistic or a-lochnesstic or a-santa-clausic.

"Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.

Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism. "

Person A

Wikipedia:

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other r...eligious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable

Theism in the broadest sense is the belief that at least one deity exists

Ok, this is just turning sad. Atheism is an absolute. There is no deity. Theism is an absolute. There is a deity. Agnostic claims there is no evidence for neither of this absolute claims.

Even if we where to ignore the definitions we can go to the basics of logic, Aristotle, and prove you are being illogical. If there is no contradiction between Atheism and agnosticism and there is no contradiction between theism and agnosticism then there must be no contradiction between atheism and theism. But this are opposites and for this reason an illogical argument.

So inorder to defend your absolute beliefs, Science is truth and God does not exist, you invoke the contradictory argument Science does not mean absolute truth so I am right about its absolute truth and Atheism does not mean an absolute belief on the nonexistence of a deity so I am right in being an atheist and not believing in a deity.

But I guess there is no evidence for that because i did not copy paste from a magazine and say "Look! this is what they said. It does not need to fit a congruent thought pattern cause the people who work on this magazine are smaaaaaaaart"

...Epistemological atheism argues that people cannot know God or determine the existence of God. The foundation of epistemological atheism is agnosticism, which takes a variety of forms. In the philosophy of immanence, divinity is inseparable from the world itself, including a person's mind, and each person's consciousness is locked in the subject. According to this form of agnosticism, this limitation in perspective prevents any objective inference from belief in a god to assertions of its existence. The rationalistic agnosticism of Kant and the Enlightenment only accepts knowledge deduced with human rationality; this form of atheism holds that gods are not discernible as a matter of principle, and therefore cannot be known to exist. Skepticism, based on the ideas of Hume, asserts that certainty about anything is impossible, so one can never know the existence of God."

Person A:

Seriously, people can believe in intuition, Karma and UFOs and when asked to prove it, they will claim they can feel it, just know it, and admit that they cannot show you evidence for this.They have made an absolute decision that this exist...s just like people make absolute decisions on their nonexistence.

This does not mean that the people who have not made an absolute decision on whether any of the absolute claims is true or not belong intermingled into this categories............

Even do your claims on atheism are insane. You are using rhetoric to prove to yourself an illogical argument is true the same way all you need for evidence on socialism being democratic and Sweden the most Democratic of all or the Founding fathers being socialists cause they where against tyranny and inequality has the socialists are is someone who reveals your preexisting belief. This is democratic decision making, not your lovevly scientific method which would be a travesty to incorporate you into it or even cal you a thinking man.

The fact that 100% of all believers in a God cannot prove the existence of a God does not mean they are agnostics. THEY STILL BELIEVE IN A GOD and acknowledgment of their inability to prove their belief does not mean they have decided upon the existence of a God and remain undecided about its existence at the same time.

Either you believe, you dont believe, or you remain undecided. Its tht simple, any rhetoric to claim both atheism and theism are the same because they can agree on lack of evidence does not matter since they already have made a decision regardless of the evidence. Not to mention this fails basic Aristotelian logic. If it does not make sense, then it must be nonsense.

But sure, when you say you dont believe in God what you mean is there is no evidence to prove or disprove God and we just dont know and this proves the nonbeliefs in God is validated because not believing and believing are the same has being undecided so everything fits in together nicely.

If that does not work you will relly on expert witness right? or on democratic decision making. If the experts agree it does not need to make sense. If the majority agree with my belief then it must be right. i can ignore my principles of science, and blah blah blah.

Sorry dude, you do not fill the bill. I dont believe any realist will take you serious. But you might have a nice place in with arm chair researchers and academic left wig political activists and remind yourselfs that you are right no matter what.